Again, all of this is very clearly explained and illustrated in dozens of boxing manuals dating from the late 1700s right through to the early 20th century, and that's where Ken Pfrenger gets his info.

Beat me to it.

If it's helpful, I could post a few pics of the "pistolgrip" style punching excerpted from the old manuals. I did so for a similar discussion on (GASP) MartialTalk. Would seem appropriate here as well.

Further, my Lulu store has several old manuals such as Edwards, and Fitzsimmons describing the style in great detail.

Were you actually leaning into the wall through your fist? If so, you should find that the different positions do actually push you progressively further away; not, IMO, enough to make much of a practical range difference if you were actually fighting, though. A little more penetration, maybe. What it does illustrate is the mechanical advantage of different types of fist alignment.

Yes, I was doing the experiment as was stated it should be done. Twisting the wrist from horizontal to vertical makes no difference. I tried it again, putting my weight on the wall to see if this changed anything. It did not. I see no reason to believe there is a mechanical advantage to using a vertical fist. What I do know is that I've always been taught to corkscrew my punches for a stronger punch, which is basically the opposite of using a vertical fist. The only advantage I see to the vertical fist is that you can slip it through someone's guard a bit more easily.

Originally Posted by DdlR

Ken Pfrenger has been boxing about as many years as you've been alive, and actively reconstructing the old-school pugilism of the 1800s for about the past ten years. There's also the little matter that this is not his "theory", he's simply presenting a condensed version of advice offered by many of the old-time champions - Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Dempsey et al.

Out of curiosity, what boxing credentials does he have besides having supposedly "done boxing" as many years as I've been alive? I don't mean to attack the man's credentials, but I like to know who I'm listening to before just rolling over and accepting that I should just believe everything they say because they said it. Can't just believe everything you read on the internet, right?

These old time champions obviously know a thing or two about the sweet science I suppose, but they neither wrote the article, nor are they being quoted directly.

Originally Posted by DdlR

There's a bunch of old fights on YouTube; boxing was a popular subject for very early filmmakers. Although there's nothing representing bare-knuckle boxing per se, which had effectively been outlawed (Queensberry Rules) decades before the invention of film cameras, the style shown in these early movies was an evolution of BKB. Depending on the fighter, you can see the relatively upright stances, extended guards, etc.

Since I don't really know what to look for, care to post some examples? You can do your service as a forum bully by making this thread much more informative with some educational videos.

Originally Posted by DdlR

The funky stance was a direct result of the rules of the London Prize Ring (mid-1800s) which encouraged a longer-range fight; you don't want to hit, or get hit in, the head too often if non-one's wearing gloves, at least not if you expect to last long enough to earn money as a prize-fighter.

Distance and deflection were the main defenses. Also, because the rules allowed standing grappling and throwing, that cut down on the bob-and-weave, infighting flurries; boxers would typically throw bombs at long range and clinch to a throw when they got close.

None of this really explains the use of the stance. In fighters are merely one branch of the many styles of modern boxers. There are lots of boxers today that work the outside. None of which stand like these boxers supposedly did. Is it because of the throws? Sanda fighters don't stand anything remotely like this. Is it because of the lack of gloves? Kyokushin fighters don't stand like this either.

Originally Posted by DdlR

Again, all of this is very clearly explained and illustrated in dozens of boxing manuals dating from the late 1700s right through to the early 20th century, and that's where Ken Pfrenger gets his info.

I'm not saying the man is full of ****, but he does a very poor job of explaining his points. This would all be far more informative with sources and some live examples of the technique in application. As is, we just have to assume that he's correct because he's some sort of historical authority.

As a history nerd with an interest in historical european martial arts I wanted to believe what the author was writing about the practicality of various old stances.

As a boxer with a good understanding of what works in a variety of rulesets I unfortunately can't bring myself to buy most of it.

I will say that for a man who's "been boxing" for as many years as I've been alive his interpretation of a modern boxing stance looks real awkward. Elbows flared, real squared up, head forward, shoulders not relaxed, hands not in an effective offensive position.

Frankly, my current boxing coach would slap his hands down and yell "That's bullshit! I don't want that!" and have him rework everything he's doing from the floor up.